1 2025:CGHC:38340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 100 of 2025 Nilima Baghel W/o Ram Avtar Baghel Aged About 37 Years Present R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Ram Avtar Baghel S/o Late Niranjan Baghel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Silhati, Block And District Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 04.8.2025 1. Petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No.29-A/2025 (Ram Avatar Baghel vs. Nilima Baghel) pending before Family Court, Kabirdham to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 20.02.2002 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and they have been blessed with two children, one son and one daughter, who are presently aged about 22 years 20 years respectively. He would further submit that the respondent/husband is having an affair with some other lady and this fact has already been raised by the wife/petitioner in the application under Section 144(1) BNSS for maintenance, filed against the respondent before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur bearing BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.08.05 14:10:29 +0530 2 Case No.37/25. Thereafter the respondent/husband has filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, before Family Court, Kabirdham (CG). He would next submit that, to and fro distance between Kabirdham and Bilaspur is about 240 km. Since one case is already pending against the husband in Family Court, Bilaspur, in which he has entered his appearance, if application for restitution of conjugal rights bearing Civil Suit No.29A/2025 is transferred from Family Court, Kabirdham to Family Court, Bilaspur, then it would not only convenient for the petitioner but also to the respondent, because he can attend both the cases in Family Court, Bilaspur, hence, it is prayed that present transfer petition may be allowed and Civil Suit No.29A/2025 be transferred from Family Court, Kabirdham to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though to and fro distance between Bilaspur and Kabirdham is 240 Km, but there is direct bus connectivity between these two places and moreover petitioner’s daughter, who is major now, is residing with the petitioner, hence, it would not be difficult for her to travel such distance. However, he conceded that maintenance application filed by the petitioner is pending before Family Court, Bilaspur. He would further submit that the petitioner is earning lady, but she concealed this fact in the maintenance application. He would further submit that the respondent is working as teacher and if the case is transferred, then it would be difficult for him to attend the Court at Bilaspur, as he has to take leave frequently to attend the Court proceedings at Bilaspur, which is not feasible to him, hence, instant transfer petition may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under:- "9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or 3 other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh -v- Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41] has observed that if husband files suit against wife, then convenience of wife must be looked into. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi -v- Kishore Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 7. In the instant case, to and fro distance between Kabirdham and Bilaspur is 240 km and this fact is not controverted by learned counsel for the respondent. As per the petitioner, application under Section 144(1) of BNSS for maintenance is already pending against the respondent/husband before Family Court, Bilaspur and he has to attend that proceeding, hence, it would be convenient for the respondent/husband also if the case bearing Civil Suit No.29A/2025 is transferred from Family Court, Kabirdham (CG) to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur(CG). 8. Considering the fact situation of the case and the distance between aforesaid two places and further considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife’s convenience must be looked into, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 4 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Civil Suit No.29A/2025, pending before the Family Court, Kabirdham be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Family Court, Kabirdham (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, within a period of 15 days. 10. Further, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. 11. In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini